Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 637 (MP)

Dilip v. State of M. P.

2013-05-14

N.K.Gupta

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicant was convicted for commission of offence under sections 341, 354 of IPC and sentenced for six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one month’s simple imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai District Betul (Shri Prakash Chandra) vide judgment dated 26.7.2004 in Criminal Case No.906/2001. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo additional imprisonment for one month. In Criminal Appeal No.70/2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, Multai District Betul vide judgment dated 26.10.2004 dismissed the appeal of the applicant in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments of both the Courts below, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicant. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.9.2001 at about 8:00 AM the prosecutrix (PW-1) went to her field at Village Savri (Police Station Multai District Betul). The applicant held the prosecutrix and pressed her breasts. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The learned JMFC after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multai. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The applicant does not challenge the conviction directed against him. He simply raises about the jail sentence for commission of offence under section 354 of IPC, whereas the applicant has completed his jail sentence for the offence under section 341 of IPC. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defence appears to be acceptable that the applicant was a youth of 25 years at that time and he has also faced the trial, appeal and revision since the year 2001. He remained in the custody for 56 days during the pendency of this revision. Under such circumstances, his jail sentence for the offence under section 354 of IPC may be removed and an appropriate fine may be imposed. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. He remained in the custody for 56 days during the pendency of this revision. Under such circumstances, his jail sentence for the offence under section 354 of IPC may be removed and an appropriate fine may be imposed. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. The conviction directed by both the Courts below for commission of offence punishable under sections 341, 354 of IPC against the applicant is hereby maintained, but the jail sentence is removed for the offence under section 354 of IPC and a fine of Rs.4,000/- is imposed for the said offence. The applicant is directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within two months, failing which he shall undergo six months’ RI. If fine is deposited, then a sum of Rs.2,500/- be provided to the prosecutrix by way of compensation whose address is given in the record of the trial Court. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as appellate Court along with their records for information and compliance.